Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 463 posts

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#291

Post by AnthonyMouse »

grayhatter wrote: post #96
basisword wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European here. I like the cookie law. It's made it clear to people how much we're being tracked and I can choose to opt out. The implementation could of course be better but the real issue is the scummy web devs choosing to make it as annoying as possible instead of taking the more sensible decision to not have 150 trackers on every page. >> I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tec…

So you like the law, but don't like how it didn't actually solve the problem it was trying to solve? I assume you're pretty well read up on matters of privacy, right? So you have a better awareness and understanding. But do you believe the average person does? Or would you assume that the average person has either been trained to ignore the banner, automatically consent to more invasive tracking, or is generally more…

> I don't want a set of rules that given enough funding any company is able to win as a negative sum game. I want a jury, not a trailing clause, to decide if the company is clearly acting in good faith or worthy of apocalyptic fines.

You want the winner to be the side with more expensive lawyers who use psychological manipulation techniques against a jury?

In general juries are the finders of fact. They decide what happened, e.g. who is lying. Judges decide the law, i.e. whether the thing the jury says they did is a violation of the law.

What you're asking for is to have the jury decide what the law is. There are a lot of problems with that, but one of the big ones is that jury determinations don't have to follow precedent and, unless you want judges ultimately deciding it anyway, can't really be appealed. Which would result in zillions of spurious lawsuits against innocent people because a small percentage of them would win big at random.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#292

Post by AnthonyMouse »

vouwfietsman wrote: post #282
grayhatter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you like the law, but don't like how it didn't actually solve the problem it was trying to solve? I assume you're pretty well read up on matters of privacy, right? So you have a better awareness and understanding. But do you believe the average person does? Or would you assume that the average person has either been trained to ignore the banner, automatically consent to more invasive tracking, or is generally more…

> So you like the law, but don't like how it didn't actually solve the problem it was trying to solve? (Not the person you replied to) I'm not sure where all of this is coming from, the law is actually extremely obvious and useful: you want to track people, they have to be informed , and have to consent . The law says nothing about how, and the way it was implemented was entirely up to the corporations discretion, wh…

> Do you feel like people are now aware that cookies are being installed, more so than before the banner? Do people understand that they are consenting to this?

> That is the law at work.

The problem is that's not what anybody, including the users, want. Nobody cares that browsers have cookies as an implementation detail. It's a ridiculous thing to use as the basis of a privacy rule. Does the user care that the site uses cookies to implement a shopping cart feature? Does the user not care that the site is tracking them without cookies using device fingerprinting? Cookies were never the problem.

On top of that, they were the thing the users already had control over. Browsers allow you to delete or reject cookies, provide private browsing modes that don't submit them, etc.

Meanwhile the things that would actually be useful, like prohibiting services from requiring the user to provide a phone number (a de facto cross-service cross-device tracking ID) in order use the service, or requiring device attestation (which uniquely identifies the device), are left unaddressed.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#293

Post by yesco »

blfr wrote: post #2

First, why does the EU leadership refuse to learn from falling behind the US economically and technologically, most starkly with AI recently, and their failures in regulating the Internet, most annoyingly the cookie law? And why aren't you, the EU citizen, more annoyed by it? I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tech and entrepreneurship. Second, what's up with Denmmark pushing for…

[flagged]

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#294

Post by nullorempty »

elric wrote: post #8

This is going to further increase anti-EU sentiment. This is unacceptable behaviour, but no politician is ever going to experience any negative consequences over this because they're so very far removed from the democratic process.

If we agree that politicians are removed from democratic process then there is really no democratic process at all.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#295

Post by remolueoend »

dgellow wrote: post #35
josmar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Switzerland has a true democracy

We also have representatives. We call it semi-direct democratic system. There is no such thing as a „true democracy“, it’s a set of principles

Agreed, but there's always the possibility of a referendum or even an initiative, to oversteer a decision of the representatives, given enough supporters.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#297

Post by raron »

m4nu3l wrote: post #50
9dev wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all things to criticise, you pick out the one ruling that eventually lead to a consolidation of chargers? Really? I haven't ever met a single person who wasn't grateful of being able to have one cable for all their devices.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A short-term view of the world, progress and technology. All my devices supported USB-C before the EU regulation. But if I wanted to buy a device with a new type of connector, I should have been able to. This is how the USB-C came to be and how any new standard in hardware happens. New technologies are made and just sold, and if they are proven to be superior to others in the m…

> if I wanted to buy a device with a new type of connector, I should have been able to

You are. Nothing prevents the manufacturers to support other better charging solutions than USB-C. In fact many notebooks has their proprietary connectors and some smartphones use custom signaling over custom USB cable to provide better experience while complying with the regulation and support USB-C charging, too.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#298

Post by skocznymroczny »

m4nu3l wrote: post #156
GTP wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have a point. But, at the same time, AFAIK the only manufacturer that complained about USB-C (and, coincidentally, making the exact same argument as you're making) was Apple. And they definitely weren't interested in making the lightning connector an industry standard. Quite the opposite.

It doesn't really matter to me, because even if that's true for Apple (or it was at the time), it still means other companies can't test new technologies. They might as well be OK with that, but it still means that consumers won't get new standards. The first attempt at enforcing such a standard in the EU was made with mini-USB. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_1... It failed to become a reg…

That's not true. You are allowed to have a prioprietary/custom connector, you just have to provide USB-C option as a fallback.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#299

Post by petre »

tokai wrote: post #46
iamnothere wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark’s recent reasonableness is somewhat of a historical aberration if you look at their history. The migrant crisis (and the failure of governments to address it) has stirred up some ugly things there.

What do you mean the migrant crisis stirred up things? The anti immigration position in danish politics has been a winning position since the mid 00's.

They saw Sweeden and freaked out, Denmark being already a nanny state.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#300

Post by mantas »

wqaatwt wrote: post #288
mantas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? The green deal stuff seems to be pretty bad. Manufacturing seems to have a hard time. The next tier economy, e.g. AI, is not seen on the horizon. Over-the-top regulations for agriculture and then opening up the market from goods where such regulations don't exist does not seem smart either. And there're lots and lots of small things like those.

Yeah, I meant mostly the 80s and 90s (i.e. the period when the Western European countries were able to keep up with the US or ever narrow the gap). Since then they have just been coasting on top of that.

EU became a thing in 1993. And soon after Europe could not keep up with US of A anymore. Even though USSR was gone, EU expanded and so on. Coincidence?
Post reply on HN